In this paper I am talking about surrealism means by several view
points, the development and the influence of this topic
On the one hand, “surrealism” means By Multimedia Century September 23rd,
2004 outline <http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~century/MMC04MC/SyllMMC04_files/7MMC_surr.rtf>:
SURREALISM, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which it is intended to
express, verbally, in writing, or by other means, the real process of thought.
Thought's dictation, in the absence of all control exercised by the reason and
outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupations.
On the other hand, Surrealism rests in the belief in the
superior reality of certain forms of association neglected heretofore; in the
omnipotence of the dream and in the disinterested play of thought. It tends
definitely to do away with all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute
itself for them in the solution of the principal problems of life.
André
Breton (in a lecture given in Brussels on 1st June 1934 at a
public meeting organised by the Belgian Surrealists, and issued as a pamphlet
immediately afterwards <http:www.wikipediacom>) speaks about a certain
immediate ambiguity contained in the word surrealism, is, in fact,
capable of leading one to suppose that it designates we know not what
transcendental attitude, while, on the contrary it expresses a desire to deepen
the foundations of the real, to bring about an even clearer and at the same
time ever more passionate consciousness of the world perceived by the senses.
The whole evolution of surrealism, from its origins to the present day, shows
that our unceasing wish, growing more and more urgent from day to day, has been
at all costs to avoid considering a system of thought as a refuge, to pursue
our investigations with eyes wide open to their outside consequences, and to
assure ourselves that the results of these investigations would be capable of
facing the breath of the street. At the limits, for many years past—or
more exactly, since the conclusion of what one may term the purely intuitive
epoch of surrealism (1919-25)—at the limits, we have attempted to present
interior reality and exterior reality as two elements in process of
unification, or finally becoming one. This final
unification is the supreme aim of surrealism: interior reality and exterior
reality being, in the present form of society, in contradiction (and in this
contradiction we see the very cause of man's unhappiness, but also the source
of his movement), we have assigned to ourselves the task of confronting these
two realities with one another on every possible occasion, of refusing to allow
the preeminence of the one over the other, yet not of acting on the one and on
the other both
at once, for that would be to
suppose that they are less apart from one another than they are (and I believe
that those who pretend that they are acting on both simultaneously are either
deceiving us or are a prey to a disquieting illusion); of acting on these two
realities not both at once, then, but one after the other, in a systematic
manner, allowing us to observe their reciprocal attraction and interpenetration
and to give to this interplay of forces all the extension necessary for the
trend of these two adjoining realities to become one and the same thing (it
is said in a lecture given in Brussels on 1st June 1934 at a public meeting
organised by the Belgian Surrealists, and issued as a pamphlet immediately
afterwards <http:www.wikipediacom>)
He shows the evolution of surrealism, it is to say, how surrealist
activity, driven to ask itself what were its proper resources, had in some way
or another to reflect upon itself its realization, in 1925, of its relative insufficiency;
how surrealist activity had to cease being content with the results (automatic
texts, the recital of dreams, improvised speeches, spontaneous poems, drawings
and actions) which it had originally planned; and how it came to consider these
first results as being simply so much material, starting from which
the problem of knowledge inevitably arose again under quite a new form. In 1934, more than ever before,
surrealism owes it to itself to defend the postulate of the necessity of
change. It is amusing, indeed, to see how the more spiteful and silly of our
adversaries affect to triumph whenever they stumble on some old statement we
may have made and which now sounds more or less discordantly in the midst of
others intended to render comprehensible our present conduct. But he prefers to
pass to the exposition of its present attitude—he thinks he ought briefly to
recall, for the benefit of those of you who were unaware of the fact, that
there is no doubt that before the surrealist movement properly so called, there
existed among the promoters of the movement and others who later rallied round
it, very active, not merely dissenting but also antagonistic dispositions
which, between 1915 and 1920, were willing to align themselves under the
signboard of Dada. Post-war disorder, a state of mind essentially
anarchic that guided that cycle's many manifestations, a deliberate refusal to
judge the actual qualifications of individuals, and, perhaps, had brought about
a dissolution of the group as yet inchoate by reason of its dispersed and
heterogeneous character, a group whose germinating force has nevertheless been
decisive and, by the general consent of present-day critics, has greatly
influenced the course of ideas.
Interesting in a different way from the future
of surrealist technics (theatrical, philosophical, scientific,
critical) appears to me the application of surrealism to action. Whatever
reservations André Breton (in a
lecture given in Brussels on 1st June 1934 at a public meeting organised by the
Belgian Surrealists, and issued as a pamphlet immediately afterwards
<http:www.wikipediacom>) is inclined to make with regard to
responsibility in general, he should quite particularly like to know how the
first misdemeanours whose surrealist character is indubitable will be judged.
When surrealist methods extend from writing to action, there will certainly
arise the need of a new morality to take the place of the current one, the
cause of all our woes.
Surrealism
then was securing expression in all its purity and force. The freedom it
possesses is a perfect freedom in the sense that it recognizes no limitations
exterior to itself. The concept of surreality,
concerning which quarrels have been sought with us repeatedly and which it was
attempted to turn into a metaphysical or mystic rope to be placed afterwards
round our necks, lends itself no longer to misconstruction, nowhere does it
declare itself opposed to the need of transforming the world which henceforth
will more and more definitely yield to it.
Surrealism
and several perspectives of meaning: Firstly, Freud
(“critiques of surrealism” <http:www.wikipediacom>)
initiated the psychoanalytic critique of surrealism: the surrealists may have been producing great works, but they were
products of the conscious, not the unconscious mind, and they deceived
themselves with regard to what they were doing with the unconscious. In
psychoanalysis proper, the unconscious does not just express itself
automatically but can only be uncovered through the analysis of resistance and
transference in the psychoanalytic process. It is an important feature that
surrealism means, however, André Breton (in a lecture given in Brussels on 1st June 1934 at a
public meeting organised by the Belgian Surrealists, and issued as a pamphlet
immediately afterwards <http:www.wikipediacom>), shows that we still live under the reign of logic... But the methods of logic are applied nowadays only
to the resolution of problems of secondary interest. The absolute
rationalism which is still the fashion does not permit consideration of any
facts but those strictly relevant to our experience. Logical ends, on the other
hand, escape us. Under colour of civilization, under pretext of progress, all
that rightly or wrongly may be regarded as fantasy or superstition has been
banished from the mind, all uncustomary searching after truth has been
proscribed. It is only by what must seem sheer luck that there has recently
been brought to light an aspect of mental life—to him belief by far the most
important—with which it was supposed that we no longer had any concern. All
credit for these discoveries must go to Freud
(“critiques of surrealism” <http:www.wikipediacom>). Based
on these discoveries a current of opinion is forming that will enable the
explorer of the human mind to continue his investigations, justified as he will
be in taking into account more than mere summary realities. The imagination is
perhaps on the point of reclaiming its rights. If the depths of our minds
harbour strange forces capable of increasing those on the surface, or of
successfully contending with them, then it is all in our interest to canalize
them, to canalize them first in order to submit them later, if necessary, to
the control of the reason. The analysts themselves have nothing to lose by such
a proceeding. But it should be observed that there are no means designed a
priori for the bringing about of such an enterprise, that until the coming of
the new order it might just as well be considered the affair of poets and
scientists, and that its success will not depend on the more or less capricious
means that will be employed.
Bibliography:
· “critiques of surrealism” <http:www.wikipediacom>
( I saw it on 1st ,des.2005)
· André Breton (A lecture given in Brussels on 1st June 1934 at a
public meeting organised by the Belgian Surrealists, and issued as a pamphlet
immediately afterwards).(I saw it on 29th.nov.2005)
· Multimedia Century September 23rd ,2004 outline <http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~century/MMC04MC/SyllMMC04_files/7MMC_surr.rtf).(I
saw it on 23rd, nov.2005)